The applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

In both instances, children were only allowed to obtain either the last name of the mother or the father. C.

indeed in a poor state of repair, badly ventilated and dirty” and that “in-cell toilets were only partially partitioned”.

Their repeated requests for long-term family visits were to no avail.

Two witnesses appeared at the hearing but were not questioned. 27.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. 3.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. 3.

THOMAS WERNER, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : G0018 ayant pour avocat plaidant Me Sébastien HUBINOIS, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque : A278 COMPOSITION DE LA COUR : L'affaire a été

{ width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 28827/02 by Yuriy Vladimirovich ISAYEV

    The Court observes that the subject and the context of the proceedings before the Şarköy Magistrate's Court were the same as those before the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.

They were of the view that there was no causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found. They noted that the ownership of the shares was the subject of pending litigation.

All the other applicants were represented by Mr   Vladislav Bychkovskiy, a lawyer practising in Miusynsk.

Turkey , The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Danutė Jočienė,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   András

sitting on 3   February   2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Rait Maruste,   Karel Jungwiert,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle

Again, this had been the first date at which the parties' representatives were able to attend.

No reply has been received to the letter they were sent to that effect on 25 September 2006. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.

Evicted persons were to be provided with another dwelling. 44.

Several additional conditions were agreed upon, including an obligation on BRS to minimise the possible damage.

The Government's observations were subsequently forwarded to the applicant. 32.